from SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml to privacy@lemmy.ml on 20 Oct 21:50
https://lemmy.ml/post/54282392
When a Department of Homeland Security official sent out an alert to stop Samuel Tunick, a Stop Cop City activist, at an airport in January 2025, they said the reason was because he was suspected of “terrorist activities,” according to new filed court records which include a screenshot of the alert and photos of Tunick’s interrogation.
Tunick ultimately provided Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials with a code that, when entered, wiped his security- and privacy-focused GrapheneOS phone. Tunick is now being criminally charged for that alleged act, in one of the most high profile technology civil rights cases in recent memory.
The court records also showed that CBP officials lied to Tunick during his interrogation. Instead of saying he was being targeted for suspected terrorism — although this search happened just at the start of the second Trump administration, it has dramatically broadened what organizations or people may be considered such — they said they needed his phone to look for “kiddie porn.”
“Good afternoon,” an email sent from a Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) official, part of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to CBP and other officials reads. “The following subject is scheduled to arrive in ATL [Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport] today via DL 1778 @ 1930 Hours. TUNICK is under investigation by HSI/JTTF for suspected terrorist activities.” The email includes a photo of Tunick, and asks the officials to direct him to secondary inspection, retain all of his electronics, and collect their passcodes.
As 404 Media first revealed in December, Tunick was charged because he allegedly “did knowingly destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, and otherwise take any action to delete the digital contents of a Google Pixel cellular phone, for the purpose of preventing and impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take said property into its custody and control.” Matthew Dodge, one of Tunick’s lawyers, previously told 404 Media he only found one other case using the same obscure law, a drug trafficking case. “This is extraordinarily rare,” Dodge said.
Tunick was part of the Stop Cop City movement in Atlanta, which broadly protested the building of a large police training center, and which authorities investigated for arson, vandalism, and doxing. Tunick is not suspected of any crime beyond the alleged wiping of the phone, and has previously put his current prosecution in the context of the wide spanning cases against other Stop Cop City protesters.
The newly filed court record, in which Tunick’s lawyers argue that evidence should be thrown out, include new photos and descriptions of the airport encounter. The CBP officials asked Tunick if they were going to find “kiddie porn” on his phone, which Tunick immediately denied. “As the evidentiary hearing made clear, these unfounded accusations were nothing more than pretext for a fishing expedition into the depths of Mr. Tunick’s devices,” the lawyers wrote. They added, “Officer Findley acknowledged that officers had no reason whatsoever to believe Mr. Tunick possessed child pornography,” referring to one of the officials.
Tunick faces a maximum of five years in federal prison for allegedly wiping the phone.
“I hope people understand that the charges against me are meant to intimidate people against protecting their data and their privacy, and the government hopes to set a precedent that no one has the right to privacy,” Tunick previously told 404 Media.
threaded - newest
This specific case is kind of a clusterfuck of questions regarding jurisprudence. He might slip away on a technicality because law enforcement has gotten sloppy under feelings of invulnerability these days.
In general though, I doubt they are going to protect the right to destroy data on a device that is or is about to be legally seized. Any reasonable person would expect that the device includes the data on board, and therefore taking action that results in the destruction of that data would be destroying evidence.
Use burners when traveling.
What’s the difference between destroying data and encrypting it with a random key? And is it okay to destroy/randomly-encrypt data through a scheduled dead-man’s switch instead of by giving out a duress code?
If the cops express interest in your data and then you take active steps to conceal or erase said data, they might charge you with Obstruction.
If there is an automated system, the charge is less likely to be brought, and unlikely to stick, because you were not responding to something that just happened.
(And I’m not saying the guy in this situation actually did what they said he did. Cops lie constantly. Video or it didn’t happen.)
I thought about this too, but I think you’d still be charged (IANAL).
If you look at what he was charged with:
So, even if you nuked your phone before going through security or even at home before your flight, I imagine you could still be prosecuted for “knowingly… delete the digital contents… for the purpose of preventing… lawful authorities to take said property into its custody”.
It’s all based on your intent behind the action and this is what the prosecution and defense would argue.
edit: typo
If he’d just committed a heinous crime I could understand them being allowed to legally seize and search his devices after getting a warrant, but he wasn’t being criminally charged with anything, right? Do they have the right to scroll anyone’s private photos who passes through customs?
Seize devices yes, but after they have it, it’s not going anywhere. There’s no sign of imminent danger either. So they can apply for a warrant just like for any other search.
That’s one of several questions this case will likely set precedent for. I’m guessing the answer will end up being yes.
Society will be forced to move to polaroid nudes only :(
Most probably only the USian “society”, tho. I know they’re too insular brained but still. The difference is important. Most of us don’t live under a Patriot Act, for instance. Crazy, right?
The answer will never be “yes.” The government lie might be “yes,” but that’s only because it’s tyrannical and illegitimate.
They’ve been doing that for ages already.
He didn’t destroy anything. The customs officer did by entering the “destroy data” key. He wasn’t under any obligation to give them the correct one, because no court had told him to provide his data.
Passcodes should be covered by the fifth amendment: when asked to provide them, say “I am exercising my right to remain silent.”
Biometrics, however, are not covered, and cops can point your phone at your face or grab your hand to unlock the device
Passcodes are not “private info” everywhere, AFAIK in the UK if you refuse to give up your passcode you could get up to 5yrs of jail time.
While that’s good information to know, this is a case in the US, so it’s kind of irrelevant.
Hands duress code
oops, you should’ve been more specific
I mean clearly destroying evidence is also illegal.
How do you know it’s evidence if you never saw what’s on it in the first place?
They have charged people with major crimes for that. For inducing their phone to wipe itself when they are looking at it.
Iirc this happened at a border crossing outside of American jurisdiction where the officers argued that those laws do not apply (while insisting that the american laws he is being charged for breaking do)
It happened at a border crossing where the fascists claim you don’t have rights, but I fucking dare anybody to show me where in the Constitution justifies that.
It should add a biometric duress option so that when cops do this it shoots themselves in the foot
They should! Also then they can’t blame the phone owner for giving them a duress password to wipe the phone, because they didn’t.
You underestimate how little the authorities care about the rules. They would still charge for it, not that we shouldn’t do it anyway.
that’s an interesting idea, but what would you mean exactly? Like biological signs of duress being detected or a secret duress biometric pass that’s distinct from the one you’d normally use such as one finger and not the other? Because the first option would be bad news if you felt stressed one day and tried to use your phone and the 2nd option would I guess be just as bad as the passcode wouldn’t it? They’d say you used a duress biometric instead of the normal one you’d otherwise have used and it wiped the phone, interfering with their investigation and destroying evidence and then prosecute you for it.
The idea is that you didn’t voluntarily input the duress biometric, they just grabbed your hand and used it to attempt to unlock the phone. That way, you didn’t take any action at all.
So for access to your phone under normal circumstances would you use something other than biometrics then? Like a passcode or something?
That’s the idea, I believe. A password or at least a gesture passcode remains the most secure option, since it can’t just be taken from one’s hand without some rubber-hose cryptanalysis.
However, as someone who’s stuck my finger into Pixel’s fingerprint scanner by accident multiple times, having thankfully never configured it for anything, I don’t think that wiping the phone in such a case is really a good idea.
This is what they’ll always do to make privacy impossible.
en.wikipedia.org/…/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp…
what did he mean by this?
Put the officers in jail. It’s that easy
That’s badass. Anyway, we need the second code to also be transparent
So I guess this boils down to wether it was a “lawful authority to take custody and control”. Do they actually need any clear indication for suspecting some crime?
This is happening in GA, the state. He participated in “stop cop city” an anti-police thing. Unless he has a very good lawyer they will put him in prison for anything they can.
They’ve already murdered one protestor.
“Officer Findley acknowledged that officers had no reason whatsoever to believe Mr. Tunick possessed child pornography”
I’m pretty sure if I made up a lie at work I’d get fired. seems to be a requirement for law enforcement
Isn’t this slander?
These child fuckers are now falsely accusing others of child abuse? Why is this not surprising?
Send all these fucking traitors to the camps they keep populating with innocent people.
Because projection has been their go-to #1 strategy for every single fucking thing for over a decade?
‘We searched the hard drive for drugs. No reason, didn’t find shit - but by god, we searched!’
‘wait til you see the stuff jimbob copied off!!!’
You were warned long ago, these CP laws will be used to take a lot of people down, just like the drug laws, they all have the same purpose, though different targets.
Every time the government is granted powers, it abuses them. It’s in their nature, they can’t help it, they are after all people.
That’s why transparency is so very important.
You are always a “suspect” for something, and CP is perfect for them to abuse because almost everybody has a phone full of photos, so they always have a “reason” to search your phone. This guy didn’t do a goddamn thing.
These cops won’t miss a day, and if they do, it will be paid for by us. We don’t get to search their phones womp womp
I don’t know what the solution is. I think that cops should have to pay the price for abusing our laws, that would be a good start.
As I recall the law they’re trying to get him on for giving them a duress password doesn’t even reply to data, and requires a physical act, not a verbal one. It’s the stretch of a stretch.
I hope the defense points out that the agency almost certainly had other means of accessing data on a phone other than using a password. Never mind that they had no reason to believe that his password was accurate.
If they had said to him “unlock your phone,” and he entered the duress password, that might fly. But they didn’t. They took his phone, asked him what the password was, and entered it. So technically they did the act.